Public Bill Committee

[David Taylor in the Chair]

David Taylor: Welcome to the Committee’s third sitting. On a beautiful sunny day such as this, I am happy for gentlemen to remove their jackets.

Clause 9

Local transport plans

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, after ‘authority’, insert
‘shall review their plan at least once every five years and’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 37, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) The authority must give one year’s notice of the date on which it intends to replace its plan.’.

John Leech: I am the first to welcome you back to the Chair this morning, Mr. Taylor.
Amendment No. 144, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, is pretty self-explanatory, so I do not intend to spend too long speaking to it. The Bill allows authorities to replace their plan as when they see fit and does not force them to replace plans every five years. The amendment would confer a duty on local transport authorities to review their local transport plans every five years and to show that that had been done. That would ensure that a local transport authority could not simply leave an unsatisfactory local transport plan languishing on the table. The amendment is probing to find out Government thinking on ensuring that local authorities take seriously the need to ensure that their local transport plans are up to date and remain relevant to the needs of the local community.

Stephen Hammond: As the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, amendment No. 144 would mean that plans were reviewed every five years. I have some sympathy for the amendment, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman advanced. The amendment would mean that authorities had to
“review their plan...once every five years”,
but I would have liked the hon. Gentleman to go a little further, because it does not suggest any action or require the authority to do anything. Although I am sympathetic to the proposal, it suffers from two defects: it calls only for a review and does not define the timetable for the plan thereafter.
Local authorities are required to replace their transport plans every five years. Subsection (3) will change that so that authorities can replace their plans whenever they see fit. I am in favour of giving local transport authorities greater flexibility in timetabling the replacement of their transport plans, but amendment No. 37 is motivated by my two concerns about the wording of the clause, and I hope that the Minister will address them.
My primary fear relates to the fact that “as they think fit” is a phrase of uncertainty because there will be no fixed timetable. Although we require and encourage the flexibility that not having a fixed timetable allows, if there is no fixed timetable, or if matters are left to when an authority sees fit, it is possible to envisage situations in which local passengers would not know from one week to the next how services would run. That would undermine the hope of persuading people to use public transport and increasing public transport patronage.
How are local operators of local services to plan ahead if the council’s transport plan can be changed at any moment? No one is suggesting that that will happen, and I do not necessarily mean that it will happen from one moment to the next. None the less, an element of uncertainty arises from the words “as they think fit.”
Amendment No. 37 would ensure that local authorities retained the flexibility and autonomy that they needed in deciding when to replace their plans, but it would require them to give “one year’s notice” of such replacement, thereby eliminating potential uncertainty.

John Leech: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument on uncertainty, but surely an authority being required to give 12 months’ notice would be as uncertain as a review of a transport plan.

Stephen Hammond: Indeed, but at least there would be a finite period from the moment the notice was given until the date of the plan, which would be helpful. I think my amendment No. 37 would enhance the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Rosie Winterton: Perhaps it would help if I set out what we are trying to achieve in the first place with the changes in clause 9. The Transport Act 2000 requires all English local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans up to date and replace them every five years. It also places authorities under a general duty to keep their plans under review. Under the Bill, we are changing the system to allow local transport authorities to replace their local transport plans as they see fit. It does not alter the duty to keep the plans under review.
We want to do that because we want local transport authorities to have plans that are more responsive to the particular needs of each area. The Bill, for example, enables authorities to replace different parts of their plans at different frequencies. In larger areas in particular, a local transport plan might include both a long-term strategy and a phased plan for implementing its proposals. An authority might want to update the implementation part of the plan more frequently than it needed to revisit its overall strategy. Another example might an authority wanting to revise its parking strategy after 18 months, but not needing to do the same for buses or road safety. Again, the Bill will give the authorities the flexibility to change parts of their local transport plan without having to go through all the bureaucracy of replacing it all at the same time.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington—I take his point about it being probing—would require local transport plans to be reviewed every five years, but not necessarily replaced. As I said, local transport authorities are already under a duty to keep their plans under review. That is set out in section 109(1) of the 2000 Act and we are not proposing any change to that duty. We feel, therefore, that the amendment would not add anything to that duty. It is superfluous. It could also be counter-productive, because keeping a plan under review should be a continuous business, while the amendment suggests a specific process done only every so often, and at least every five years.
Local authorities’ existing plans are due to run until 2010-11, and by summer 2009 we intend to have issued them with guidance on producing future transport plans. We will put a draft of that guidance out to consultation around the end of this year. Among other things, the guidance is likely to cover the process of reviewing and replacing local transport plans, and how and with what frequency, taking local circumstances into account, authorities should be looking to do that.
The hon. Gentleman might be concerned that a local authority may change its plan very rarely—perhaps that is the point of his amendment—but the response we have had from local authorities shows that they think that the local transport plans are useful documents, so I do not think that there is a serious risk that they will just put them on the shelf for five years, or for ever, and never look at them again.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in looking at the guidance when it comes out. I can assure him that we shall set out what we think is an appropriate way to continue that process of monitoring the local transport plans positively so that they reflect local circumstances and differing needs at different times.
Amendment No. 37 would introduce a new duty on local transport authorities to give a year’s notice of their intention to replace their plans, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said. Preparing and replacing a local transport plan cannot be done overnight, not least because local transport plans are, for example, subject to EU regulations on environmental assessments. Clause 9 already places duties to consult on authorities, which could not be met by plans being produced overnight.
I hope that it offers hon. Members some reassurance to know that the new duty to replace plans as authorities see fit will not lead to constant changing of plans with little notice being given, if that is the worry in relation to the amendment.
Authorities will need to take the process of reviewing, changing and having proper consultations on their plans very seriously. However, requiring a year’s notice would run the risk of erecting a bureaucratic obstacle to the replacement of plans. In many cases, authorities may need a year, or more, to develop, consult on and approve their plans, but not necessarily. One example, which is particularly appropriate at this point, is a newly elected administration wishing to change parts of its local plan as soon as possible. If some groundwork had been done as part of routine work carried out under the previous administration, it might not take a further year to complete the work. However, as it is not clear whether the amendment would apply to the replacement of part of a plan, it could be an obstacle to such updating.
Likewise, an authority might develop a local transport plan consisting of a longer-term strategy and a shorter-term implementation plan. The authority might want to replace just the implementation part of the plan, which might be achievable in less than a year, even allowing for consulting properly on the changes.
A local transport authority might be able to comply with the requirement to give at least a year’s notice, but, for reasons outside its control, it might need to replace its plans at a date later than the one it originally gave in the notice. It is not clear what legal effect the amendment would have in those particular circumstances.
In summary, local transport authorities are already under a duty to consult on their local transport plans. The amendments propose extra administrative duties, which we do not feel would secure more co-operation between local transport authorities and other bodies. In some circumstances, they would constrain the flexibility that we are aiming to introduce.
I hope that I have given some reassurance to Opposition Members and that they will not press the amendments.

John Leech: In the light of the Minister’s helpful comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after ‘any)’, insert
‘and representatives of town and parish councils in the county’.
Although the increased flexibility for planning and implementing local transport plans is welcome, the requirement for local transport authorities or county councils simply to consult district councils in their area does not go far enough. If we are serious about local decision making and if local transport plans are to be as responsive to the needs of local communities as possible and as responsive to people in rural areas as they are to those in urban and metropolitan areas, it is essential that local transport plans are built from the bottom up. Therefore, town and parish councils, as the most local form of government, have an important role to play in feeding in the voices of the smallest rural communities.
The issue is particularly important, given that the Bill amends the 2000 Act to remove the need for a local transport authority to produce a bus strategy. Although the concept of an integrated transport plan is welcome, the bus strategy is very important in rural areas, where buses are often the only viable form of public transport. In rural areas, local services and facilities are often few, limited and geographically disparate. Lack of access to transport, particularly public transport, leaves many people facing difficult circumstances and, often, social exclusion. Lack of transport can have a multitude of negative effects, including reducing employment and educational opportunities and access to health care and social and leisure activities. That is particularly the case for the 11 per cent. of rural households without a car. The young and the elderly feature highly in that category.
Public transport is needed by people living in rural areas just as it is by those living in urban areas, but the lower population density of rural areas and the greater distances between villages and towns mean that public transport services tend to be less frequent and, as a result, less convenient. That means that more people must rely on cars for their day-to-day transport, which has significant implications for congestion levels and the environment, both of which are of growing concern to the public and lie at the heart of the Government’s current legislative programme.
Car ownership and use is high in rural areas: 52 per cent. of rural households have two or more cars, and three quarters of all journeys in rural areas are made by car. On average, rural residents travel more than 40 per cent. further than urban residents each week, because facilities and services are farther away. As services are lost—a current topic is post offices—people must travel further.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any district council or county council would be duty-bound to involve parish councils anyway?

John Leech: I agree that that should happen, but the amendment would ensure that, as part of the process, town and parish councils were statutory consultees.
If we are to create sustainable public transport networks, with the aim of providing greater access to services and facilities for people living in rural communities and, in the long term, reducing reliance on the car, transport schemes and local transport plans must be created with reference to the social and economic needs of local communities. It is essential that, when creating local transport plans, local authorities undertake accessibility planning. There is a need for more flexibility in the types of transport provided and for more demand-responsive services, such as minibus routes for a number of individuals in remote areas.
The appropriate planning of transport schemes and strategies in rural areas has the potential to rejuvenate communities and provide an essential lifeline for villages that do not have ready access to key services and facilities, thereby ensuring their sustainability. The Bill must take account of the needs of rural communities and those who live and work in the countryside, which is why it is vital to ensure proper consultation with that smallest form of government.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman said, his amendment would put in place a specific statutory requirement for local transport authorities to consider the views of town and parish councils when developing and implementing their transport policies. I have said that consultation is already an integral part of the development of the local transport plan process. Local transport authorities already consult many interested and affected groups when developing local transport plans, including key delivery partners, such as town and parish councils. Moreover, the clause requires local transport authorities to consult on local transport plans. The only consultees specified by name are certain other local authorities, and the Secretary of State. However, it is also specified that local transport authorities must consult any “such other persons as” they consider appropriate.
As I have said, we intend to develop guidance for local authorities in preparation for the next round of local transport plans. I am sure that other hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and in areas where it is appropriate to consult parish and town councils, we want that to happen.

John Leech: Does the Minister accept that there may be circumstances in which a transport authority might not want to consult a parish or town council because it thought that the council might be a nuisance or because it was run by a different political party and was not the sort of organisation that it wanted to consult? Surely, if the consultation is put on a statutory footing, we would avoid the possibility of a local authority choosing to ignore the views of elected members of the community.

Rosie Winterton: As ever, however, there is a danger in some of those circumstances of putting a long list in the Bill, when the appropriate place for such advice is the guidance itself. If we put that in the Bill, there is always a danger that it will become out of date or place one group above another. We do not believe that putting a whole list of consultees in the Bill is the right approach because it is important to have some flexibility in how we approach consultation, which is why we believe that it is better to put it in guidance.

Stephen Hammond: Given what the Minister has just said about the guidance, will she confirm that parish councils will be included?

Rosie Winterton: The guidance will emphasise the importance of consulting appropriate bodies. We may give examples of what might be considered appropriate bodies, but I emphasise that we tend, rightly, to put guidance out for consultation. I would not want to write the guidance in the Committee, but we will certainly draw attention to the sort of bodies that might be considered appropriate.

John Leech: I thank the Minister for giving way again. She talks about the need for flexibility, but I would argue the opposite: we ought to be quite inflexible when considering whether to consult parish or town councils. We should say, “Yes, we will do so under all circumstances.”

Rosie Winterton: That is the hon. Gentleman’s view. My view is that we might wish to consult other bodies. As I have said, parish councils might well be appropriate consultees. When we consider some of the Bill’s later clauses, particularly those relating to improvements to community transport, we will see that there are lots of ways in which parish and town councils might have an appropriate role. However, I do not want to get into the business of putting every consultee on the face of the Bill, because there is always a danger of missing out a group or giving one group precedence over another. We do not want to put it on the face of the Bill, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will certainly consider referring to parish and town councils in the guidance.

John Leech: Can the Minister give me an example of when she feels it might not be appropriate to consult a town or parish council?

Rosie Winterton: A local transport plan might refer to establishing a quality partnership that goes nowhere near a particular parish council, because the parish council might be in a completely different area from the one proposed for the quality partnership. In those circumstances, I suspect that the guidance would say that the relevant bodies within an area should be consulted, but overall, I expect the drawing up of local transport plans generally to involve consultation with a number of bodies, and I am sure that we will suggest in the guidance that parish and town councils may be appropriate bodies.
I also emphasise that when we issue guidance, we try to consult on it beforehand. When the hon. Gentleman sees it, he might like to contribute to it anything that is missing, but I assure him that we will consider it seriously. I understand his point, but I do not feel that it is right to put long lists on the face of the Bill.

John Leech: I am not reassured by the Minister’s comments. If we are serious about local accountability, there should be statutory consultation with town and parish councils. I am minded to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
‘(c) operators of bus services which are provided within the authority’s area or organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of such operators,
(d) operators of rail services which are provided within the authority’s area or organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of such operators,
(e) any relevant rail infrastructure manager,
(f) organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of local transport.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 143, in clause 9, page 11, line 39, at end insert—
‘(d) operators of bus services which are provided within the authority’s area or organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of such operators,
(e) operators of rail services which are provided within the authority’s area or organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of such operators,
(f) any relevant rail infrastructure manager,
(g) organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of local transport.’.

John Leech: The amendments would mean that operators of bus and rail services and passengers should be consulted before local authorities and ITAs make local transport plans. I suspect, given what happened to the previous amendment, that I am probably not going to get very far with this.
The 2000 Act and the Bill do not confer a duty to have regard to other things but it makes sense that they should have regard to promoting integrated transport and how the bus and rail network should work together. Route utilisation strategies are central to the forward planning activity of the railway industry. They set out current capacity passenger and freight demand, operation performance and cost projections to address the future requirements of rail users, funders and key stakeholders. The rail utilisation strategies then perform the development and delivery of timetables, infrastructure, maintenance and renewals of the network. If local transport authorities are to be safe, integrated, economic, environmentally sustainable and efficient they must take into account the area’s current and future rail capacity.
The Government will almost certainly argue that it is more appropriate for local authorities to decide which organisations they consult, given what has already been said this morning. By and large that is true, but how many local authority areas do not contain an operating railway station, for instance? It cannot be many, if any. 
The Minister will probably say that the Government will put in guidance the kind of bodies it would be appropriate for local authorities to consult and the kind of plans and strategies that should be considered. She will almost certainly say that it is preferable to have such bodies in guidance rather than in the Bill because it would be a long list and would become increasingly out of date over time. There may be some sense in that. However, if anything, the railways are set to become more important and as it is much harder to move a railway station than a bus stop there is a need to encourage more integrated working. There needs to be a stronger relationship in the legislation between what we do with rail and what we do with road.

Stephen Hammond: The amendments mirror in their intent, and go slightly further than, my amendments Nos. 38 and 39, which were not selected. They also mirror the arguments we had on Tuesday afternoon regarding amendment No. 36. They specify rail infrastructure managers who, under the definition we discussed on Tuesday, include operators. There is some merit in putting them in the Bill because the rail network, as I have previously explained, transcends local authority borders and is managed or operated in most cases by local transport authorities, but at the beginning and the end of train journeys users will be reliant on transport services which are put in place by the local authority. Therefore, as we discussed previously, there is some merit in giving such local transport authorities a responsibility to consult.
The amendments go further than amendment No. 36, and there is wide, all-encompassing phraseology in the Bill regarding such persons as the local authorities consider fit. That would seem to cover operators of bus services, operators of rail services and organisations representing local users of transport. It would be highly unusual if it did not. However, as I said on Tuesday and on previous occasions, unless we have real reassurance, I am, in principle, in favour of a concept that details the responsibilities that are specific to local authorities and those that transcend what local authorities might do. I am particular about having those responsibilities set out in the Bill.
Although the Minister gave great reassurance regarding the last amendment, on Tuesday I was not minded to accept her reassurance regarding amendment No. 36. As those two amendments almost mirror in intent amendment No. 136, unless the Minister is able to give us more reassurance than she did on Tuesday, I am minded to support amendments Nos. 142 and 143, if the Liberal Democrat spokesman wants to test the will of the Committee.

Rosie Winterton: It is kind of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington almost to give my speech for me. In doing so, he has indeed anticipated a lot of what I was going to say.
This debate is an absolute illustration of the fact that, once we start down the line of trying to put into primary legislation everything about who should be consulted, every member of the Committee could think of somebody else whom they felt it appropriate to consult. The debate illustrates the danger of trying to go down that track.
All the bodies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his amendment would be bodies that we would be putting in the guidance; that is without doubt. However, I must say that I do not feel that it is appropriate to put lists of such bodies in the Bill, although I can assure him that they are absolutely the type of bodies that we shall refer to in the guidance and we would expect local authorities to consult them. I hope that gives the reassurance that the hon. Member for Wimbledon in particular was looking for.

John Leech: I am not sure that the Minister’s comments give me the reassurance that I was looking for, and I am not sure that they will reassure the hon. Member for Wimbledon either. I do not see a strong argument as to why those bodies cannot be set out in the Bill. Given that I am likely to attract more than one vote, I am minded to go for a further Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Duty to have regard to transport needs of disabled persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I rise not to question the motives behind the clause, but to probe the Minister on a couple of points arising from it. The provision is absolutely right and appropriate. Section 112 of the 2000 Act rightly places a duty on local authorities to have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or who have mobility problems. The clause develops that from a duty of development to one of implementation, and it tidies up the obvious problem of the reference to elderly people or those with mobility difficulties by expanding the duty to include all disabled people as defined under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In relation to the duty of implementation, one of the reasons why the 1995 Act has been so successful is that local authorities have been given time to comply with it. Although a lot of people would have liked the implementation period to be shorter, it has allowed local authorities and other bodies to put meeting the requirements of the 1995 Act into their normal replacement cycle and therefore absorb some of the extra costs that have clearly been incurred. Will the Minister say whether the same intention is reflected in the Bill, so that that there will be a period of implementation rather than a set date, and that the period will be similar to that specified under the Disability Discrimination Act?

Greg Knight: Clause 11 imposes a duty to have regard to the needs of disabled persons, but the 1995 Act is already on the statute book and its provisions must be adhered to, so what would be the actual effect of not having the clause in the Bill? To use the favourite word of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, is it not otiose?

Rosie Winterton: Let me explain a little background to the clause, which will also help to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The provision will amend an existing duty under the 2000 Act to reinforce the message to local authorities that they must consider the needs of all disabled persons not only when planning, but when delivering local transport in their areas. The clause was added to the Bill in the other place by a Government amendment in response to calls from Lord Low of Dalston to see what more we could do to disability-proof the Bill.
The 2000 Act already places a duty on local transport authorities when they are developing their local transport policies, whereby they must have regard to the needs of persons who are elderly or who have mobility problems. However, the wording of that duty should now be brought more into line with the latest disability discrimination legislation.
Clause 11 will clarify two points. First, it will make clear that local transport authorities must consider the needs of all disabled people. The needs of some people—for example, those with hearing impairments—might not be covered by the 2000 Act duty. There might be a case for expanding the provision of audible facilities on pedestrian crossings or audible travel information. Indeed, some disability groups have raised concerns that the current duty is too focused on physical mobility problems at the expense of other forms of disability, such as hearing or visual impairments.
Secondly, the clause will make it clear that the needs of disabled people must be considered not only when drawing up local transport plans, but when putting those plans into practice. For example, the needs of disabled persons should be considered not only when writing local transport plans, but when designing a new bus station or negotiating the terms of a voluntary partnership agreement with bus operators. A local transport plan might also be the right place to review parking provision for disabled motorists.
To answer the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, the 1995 Act places a general duty on public authorities in relation to disabled persons, but there is some inconsistency in the provisions of that Act and the Transport Act 2000. We believe that the clause will bring greater consistency and provide greater clarity. I am sure that the Committee agrees that everyone will benefit from legislation that is as clear as possible. The clause also provides a useful opportunity to reinforce the message that local authorities have no excuse for not taking account of the needs of all disabled people when planning and delivering local transport.
To answer the hon. Member for Wimbledon, if local authorities see a particular problem in meeting the provisions of clause 11, we will listen to representations. However, we believe that there should not be a problem. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, it is something that they should be doing anyway, so there should not be a long delay before implementation.

Stephen Hammond: I understand entirely what the Minister says, but one of the benefits of the DDA is that is allows implementation periods to vary. Do the Government have in mind a set implementation date, or is it variable?

Rosie Winterton: In a sense, the implementation date will be one that is considered reasonable in the circumstances. For example, when considering setting up a new bus station, if the current one has particular problems, implementation will obviously be subject to a variety of time limits. However, the requirement should not be over-burdensome. We believe that it is something that local authorities should be doing, but we wanted to use this opportunity to reinforce the message.

Ian Stewart: My right hon. Friend is articulating the justification for the clause. In the city of Salford in my constituency, we have an active disabled drivers association. The council has sensibly co-opted a delegate from the association, Mr. Jim Wheelton, on to the planning committee, and he attends all visits. There is good practice in Salford, but the clause will bring consistency across the country. That must be to the benefit of all our disabled constituents.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. Once again, his constituency is leading the way in best practice, and I congratulate it on taking the needs of disabled people fully into account.
As I said, clause 11 is to be welcomed. We expect the commencement order to state a specific date for its provisions to come into force, but when setting that date, we will consider local authority views on implementation. The Government included the clause as a result of representations made in the other place, and it has been warmly welcomed by representatives of older and disabled people, including Help the Aged, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the chair of the Royal National Institute of Blind People. I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Greg Knight: I am sure that the Committee will agree with the Minister. Indeed, every reasonable person would agree with her.
May I ask a question for clarification? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the duty to look after the needs of disabled people will be complied with as an overall policy, and that the clause will not mean that every seat on every vehicle must be disability compliant? I am thinking particularly of local authorities based in tourist areas, which may often have a tourist feature as part of their transport system. We have all seen the trains that run up and down the seafront of many seaside towns, and I believe that Scarborough uses a 1920s steam bus as part of its transport provision. The bus has steep stairs to the upper platform which no disabled person could possibly negotiate. Will she confirm that the overall provision must be disability compliant, but that historic vehicles or tourist vehicles will not be forced off the road?

Rosie Winterton: I believe that that consideration is covered in other parts of the DDA, where operators in such circumstances are expected to make reasonable adjustments. That is the bit of the DDA that would cover that kind of operator. The duty in the clause is to have regard to the needs of disabled people. The specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman is covered in other parts of the DDA which refer to “reasonable adjustments” that need to be made in such circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Development of policies by ITA no longer joint duty with district councils

Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 12, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2B) An Integrated Transport Authority shall consult the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the area on its proposals for the local transport plan.’.
No. 8, in clause 12, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2B) If a majority of the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the area agree a resolution opposing the local transport plan, the plan shall not have effect.’.

Graham Stringer: The clause takes away the rights of local authorities in an integrated transport authority to be involved in or consulted on the drawing up and development of transport policies by the ITA. The purpose of these three probing amendments is to ask why.
I am grateful to the Clerk for helping me to draw up amendment No. 6—it is immediately incomprehensible to anyone who reads it—which, in effect, would reassert the status quo in involving metropolitan district councils in drawing up transport plans. Amendment No. 7 would put a duty on the ITA to consult local authorities—a similar point was discussed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington—and amendment No. 8 would give a power of veto if a majority of the local authorities in an ITA area do not agree with the policies that have been developed after consultation by the ITA.
To explain further we have to go back to the core of the Bill, which puts right some of the failings of the deregulation of bus services introduced by the Conservative Government—I assume that we will come to that topic this afternoon—and brings back, after the abolition of metropolitan councils in the mid-1980s, an authority that will have both highways and transport powers so that integrated transport policies can be developed.
What is unusual about the Government’s proposals, which I will probe in these amendments and later ones, is that they allow the powers of highways authorities to be transferred to the integrated transport authority with the purpose of promoting better transport policies. That is fine, but there is a real difference between the authorities.
The highways authorities in the six metropolitan areas are directly elected, so someone who has a concern about traffic management arrangements in their area—there are many concerns in most metropolitan areas about shopping, waiting and car parking—can go to their local councillor. They can say that something is wrong and they want it changed, or that they do or do not want double yellow lines or a bus lane and so on, and their local councillor can then go to the council and pursue the matter. Transferring powers to an integrated transport authority composed of indirectly elected councillors and perhaps seconded people will remove immediate local democratic input.
The purpose of the amendment is to ask why that is proposed. If that right is to be taken away, should we not have some safeguards to ensure that directly elected people have a right of veto? In the case of Manchester, six local authorities would be required to say that a scheme was mad, so it would not be a trivial matter.

Greg Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman not, in effect, arguing in amendment No. 8 for a provision to deal with exceptional local circumstances?

Graham Stringer: I shall not go back to the debates on the definition of “exceptional” and “economic”, although I note that later amendments deal with the word “economic”. No, in fact, the situation the amendment would cover might not be exceptional at all. If the integrated transport authority proposed a scheme to put bus lanes in four of the authorities in Merseyside, for instance, and those authorities objected to it, they would have a veto. That is not an exceptional situation; it goes much wider than that.
The amendment gives directly elected people the power to tell indirectly elected and appointed people, “You might well have got this wrong.” There have been so many changes to local government in the past 25 years that we have got a long way from what I believe is the right principle—that people who are elected have the right to tax, but others have the right to throw them out. In this case, we are talking about people in a new, powerful integrated transport authority who cannot be thrown out directly.
These are probing amendments, and I will not press them after I have listened to the profound arguments made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am very interested in why we should take these rights away from local authorities and the electorate. These matters are not trivial, but pretty fundamental, and I might well return to them on Report.

Stephen Hammond: The clause gave me considerable concern when I read it, and had the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley not been faster in getting to the Clerk, I would certainly have tabled probing amendments—and perhaps not just probing ones. The hon. Gentleman argued powerfully—some of us will have experienced this either as councillors before we had the honour of joining the House or as Members of Parliament—that sometimes regional transport authorities either completely override or do not listen to constituents’ concerns. As directly elected Members, we have almost no power to influence or persuade them. I have direct experience of that previously as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament.
The explanatory notes on clause 12 indicate that the intent is to remove the duty to produce plans jointly and place that responsibility solely on the integrated transport authority. As the hon. Gentleman said, his amendments would maintain the status quo, which strikes me as not such a bad thing, unless the Minister can provide some reassurance. I am sure that she will tell us that the amendments are unnecessary because the integrated transport authority will inevitably act in consultation, but in my direct experience that is not always the case. A local authority might not be able to push its points, concerns and local transport wishes forcefully enough if it is not a statutory consultee. The regional authority would be bound to listen to the concerns of local people, communities and local elected members, if they were statutory consultees. Amendment No. 6 would provide for that obligation instead of leaving it to ministerial discretion, guidance or secondary legislation. Although in many cases it would be preferable to leave the list of consultees to guidance, in relation to clause 12, owing to the juxtaposition of the unelected regional body and the elected local bodies, I am in favour of putting it in the Bill.
Equally, amendment No. 7 becomes valuable only if, as a result of consultation, it can effect the desired outcome. In many cases, the outcome that is hoped for might be achieved through the consultation process, but what happens if it is not? Local communities’ needs and wishes and the expressed views of local, directly and democratically elected representatives can easily be overridden by the regional transport authority.
Amendment No. 8 attempts to correct that error, although perhaps it is worded less fully than I would have preferred. I would have preferred it to say, “or any part of that plan” rather than just “plan”, because that would have allowed people to support the plan overall, but to disagree with parts of it. Notwithstanding that deficit, amendment No. 8 has considerable merit. I recognise that, in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, these are probing amendments, but I think that the Minister really needs to reassure us on how the wishes and views of the local, directly and democratically-elected members expressed on behalf of constituents will not be completely overridden by regional transport authorities, as is the experience of some of us at the moment.

Rosie Winterton: The clause goes to the heart of some of the changes in the Bill. We have received many representations: I, and I am sure all members of the Committee, have met representatives from some of the PTAs who say that they have encountered huge problems when trying to take an integrated approach to implementing or drawing up local transport plans. It may be that one authority decides simply not to co-operate with work to put together a good bus strategy across the whole area, and that causes enormous problems in efforts to improve and integrate public transport in an area. For example, in my local area in South Yorkshire, the current system means that transport plans are probably put together by people on the passenger transport executive; the plans are then sent back to the metropolitan councils—Doncaster in my case—who will then agree that the transport plans should go forward and who have a duty to implement them. So, once a transport plan is agreed, there is a duty to implement it.
One of the points made to us is that that process is sometimes frustrated and people end up with a watered-down plan across an area. Representations about that point have been made when I have met people in local areas. People from all political parties have raised that issue—it is not something said just by people of one political persuasion; it is something many people have said to me. If we are to have a truly integrated transport approach, it is important to set up within these areas new integrated transport authorities, which would have the power to implement the agreed policies over the range of the area for which they are responsible.
Clause 12 establishes the key role that integrated transport authorities—the successors to PTAs—must play in their areas. That means the duties to develop transport policies and to produce, review and update a local transport plan will in future lie with the integrated transport authority in an integrated transport area. The duty to carry out statutory functions so as to implement those policies will continue to apply to individual local authorities in an IT area as well as to the IT authorities themselves. Again, that replicates the existing situation in which, as I have said, individual metropolitan district councils, such as Doncaster in South Yorkshire, have a duty to carry out their transport functions—for example, in relation to parking or management of the road network. Outside the integrated transport areas, responsibility for the local transport plan will remain with individual local authorities, such as county councils.
The change we are proposing to make in our major cities will enable there to be decision making that is more decisive in identifying transport needs and implementing solutions. By giving the duty to produce local transport plans to the integrated transport authority, we will encourage stronger and more strategic transport planning.

John Leech: Does the Minister not accept that the decision made by the ITA might be completely at odds with the views of the people in the local authority who will be affected?

Rosie Winterton: I was coming to that point, to give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and other Committee members. First, it is important to remember that councils will be statutory consultees. Secondly, every council will be represented on the authority. The opportunities are available. When we issue guidance—we shall come to clauses on governance later—we will expect local authorities and the integrated transport authorities to consult widely with the constituent councils in their area.
If a vast number of councils in an area do not agree with the approach being taken, we do not expect it to be forced on them; however, we must recognise that there might be situations in which, for example, one council refuses to endorse the implementation of a bus lane strategy throughout the area. As I said, many people who serve on passenger transport authorities say that it can be incredibly frustrating to try to put together good, integrated transport policies and not be able to. That is a difficult situation. It is a problem that often stands in the way of delivering good public transport, and we believe that the approach that we are adopting will assist the process and enable better delivery of transport in our major cities.
The safeguards—for instance, ensuring that consultees are statutory and that every PTA has a representative from each council—will effectively prevent a small minority of councils from imposing their will on a majority. We want a level of agreement, but we must take into account that there are difficulties at the moment that we cannot ignore if we want to enable integrated transport authorities to deliver good public transport in their area and good integrated transport strategies.
Amendment No. 7 would create a duty for integrated transport authorities to consult metropolitan district councils about their proposals, but as I said, clause 9 already imposes a requirement for the ITA to consult individual authorities when preparing or reviewing its local transport plan. That is already provided for.
Amendment No. 8 would enable a majority of metropolitan district councils opposed to a local transport plan to prevent it from having effect, but as I said, the current membership of passenger transport authorities is drawn from metropolitan district councils. They are designed to be representative of their areas and ensure that the views of individual authorities are properly represented when a local transport plan is being drawn up, and that will continue after the creation of integrated transport authorities. A majority, at the very least, of the members of each ITA must be elected representatives of the authorities in that area.
We must get the balance right between acknowledging the problems faced in some areas by PTEs and assisting them in implementing proper ITAs, and at the same time giving the reassurance that I hope I have given by explaining the process that will be gone through and the fact that councils will be statutory consultees. There will be representatives from every council on the ITA. In later guidance, to which right hon. and hon. Members might like to contribute, we will set out some of the ways in which we believe it is possible to reach maximum agreement in order for ITAs to proceed effectively.
I hope that my comments reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Graham Stringer: I support much of what my right hon. Friend said about the rebalancing that is going on in the Bill to make it easier to have good transport policies in metropolitan areas. All of us who have been involved in transport in metropolitan areas for a long time can recognise the case that she makes. Occasionally there is cussedness, plain awkwardness or political differences between authorities that prevent perfectly good transport schemes from going ahead. I understand that argument, but the purpose of the amendments was to say, “If you are rebalancing, where do the electorate come in, because you are rebalancing to a sort of semi-quango in which the electorate cannot be directly involved?” In doing that, we need to put in safeguards, whether those safeguards involve the councils saying, “No, the ITA has got it wrong,” or—we shall come to the relevant amendments later—the electorate being able to throw the rascals out, as they do to us from time to time.
Those safeguards are not present, so I thought that these were moderate amendments that pointed at that. Although what the Minister says is reasonable, those of us who have worked in two-tier areas for a time know that councillors can be bloody-minded and they can do things because they do not like the other lot—sometimes of the same political party. I shall give an example. When Greater Manchester county council was being abolished, I was involved in the creation of what is now the museum of science and industry in Manchester. I went to do the deal with the then leader of the county council to put the aerospace museum into the slightly bigger, county-run museum of science and industry. Bernard Clarke, who was the leader then, said, “You know the reason the doors of these two museums, which we can integrate if you and I get together, are facing in opposite directions is that the two council leaders when they were set up hated each other and would not co-operate.”
That can happen just as easily in relation to transport, so while we are rebalancing in favour of making it easier to have an integrated transport policy, we must recognise that an ITA could have bloody-minded people on it who are not directly accountable and who could do the equivalent thing in the area of transport to what happened with those two museums. Because we are all human beings, the ITA will not always be able to get its policies right. I live on the boundary of Manchester, Salford and Bury, and at the moment an appalling road-widening scheme is going on for bus lanes. Bury, which is the highways authority, has got it completely wrong, in my opinion and, I would guess, in the opinion of many people who look at it. The amendments are meant to deal with matters that the ITA gets wrong, and to put in some checks and balances.
The answer to that, my right hon. Friend the Minister says, is not the electorate. It is that all the councils that are part of the metropolitan area will send people along, so they cannot really get it that wrong. I have to say that that has not been my experience. If we do the arithmetic, we will find that it depends on the basis of the membership of the ITA. An ITA could be unreasonably repressive to one authority and put forward schemes that may well be part of a bigger integrated transport scheme but are unreasonable to the people who live in the area. It is unlikely, but, in the case of Manchester, 10 hung councils could all send representatives of a particular political party. That would be completely unrepresentative of the districts.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I think that we will come back later in the Bill not just to this point but to some others that deal with the same core issue. We may come back to it on Report, because while I agree with the balance of the Bill, which furthers better transport, I do not think that we have this right.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman made a powerful and cogent case for the Committee accepting the amendments. I am a little puzzled about why he is now saying that he will withdraw them.

Graham Stringer: The simple answer is that I am withdrawing the amendments because I think that we would win, given how this place works. I would not be in this Committee if we were going to defeat the Government on every amendment. This is the basis of a discussion that we may return to on Report.
It is interesting that hon. Members have listened carefully to the debate. I hope that the Government have listened as well. It would not be sensible for a Labour Member of Parliament to defeat the Government here and now. I am putting the case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the discussion on this amendment and others. I do not want to embarrass anyone.

Greg Knight: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s mindset. I do not regard myself as being here to defeat the Government, either. I am here to scrutinise a Bill that is the Government’s will and to seek to improve it. Surely, if he is here to do the same thing, there is nothing wrong with seeking to persuade the Government through the voting process to accept the amendments.

Graham Stringer: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I think that he is being slightly disingenuous. It is part of his core business to defeat the Government, but it is not part of mine. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened carefully to this fertile debate. I am sure that we can make some progress not only in rebalancing the policies in favour of transport but in ensuring that we do not repress the democratic process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.